Tag: Birkenhead County Court

District Judge Woodburn grants Wirral Council Possession Order: Pony Club given a year to leave Fernbank Farm

EXCLUSIVE: District Judge Woodburn grants Wirral Council possession order: pony club given a year to leave Fernbank Farm

District Judge Woodburn grants Wirral Council Possession Order: Pony Club given a year to leave Fernbank Farm

                          

Wirral Council v Kane and Woodley (case 3BI05210)
Birkenhead County Court
13th February 2014
Court Room 1

Continues from Cross-examination of Kane & Woodley, parties summarise their case in Wirral Council v Kane and Woodley (Fernbank Farm).

In the Birkenhead County Court in Wirral Borough Council versus Kane & Woodley (case 3BI05210) after a two-hour hearing people were invited back into Court Room 1 to hear District Judge Woodburn’s judgement.

He asked people to “please have a seat” and said was now going to deliver his judgement, asking everyone to remain silent until the end when he would invite representations from the parties to the case.

District Judge Woodburn said that it was a claim by Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council to recover possession of land. The defendants were trustees of Upton Park Pony Owners Association and tenants of the said association had occupied the land for many years. A formal lease to the land had been formalised with the association on the 29th July 2008. This lease had been from the 1st June 2008 to the 31st May 2011. The rent had been £4,200 a year paid monthly on the first of each month. The lease enabled the defendants to use it for grazing and a paddock for gymkhanas. In his mind there was little doubt that this was a business use and leased for that purpose.

The method of termination had been the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 c. 56. When the fixed term had ended nothing had happened. The 1954 Act detailed steps in protecting the position of the tenants in terms of expired leases until a notice to terminate a statutory tenancy. The landlord had been the first to act and the notice dated 13th July 2012 was each on each of the defendants, which was a notice to terminate the statutory tenancy.

Each notice had followed the prescribed form, which was a strict form determined by regulations made by the 1954 Act. The notice to each defendant stated that the tenancy would come to an end on the 31st May 2013, this notice was dated 13th July 2012, therefore there was in excess of ten months notice given to terminate the tenancy.

He had heard and read the evidence of David Dickenson that the notices were properly served. The notices were both in the same form so he would refer to just one notice. Paragraphs two, three, four and five of the notice were given to end the tenancy. Wirral Council was not opposing a new tenancy as of July 2012 which was set out in a schedule to the notice referred to later. Paragraphs four and five were quite clear that if you can’t agree than either you or the landlord could ask the court to grant an order for a new tenancy and that if you wished to do so you must do so by the date in paragraph two.

This date was the 31st May 2013 and it must be done by this date unless there was agreement in writing to a later date before the date in paragraph two. There was no document in writing agreement to extend the date. Schedule two set out the proposed terms, £4,500 a year as opposed to £4,250 plus legal fees of £500. All other terms were as per the old lease.

The question that arose was what the defendants did in response. It was left principally to Mrs Kane and he had heard the evidence of Mrs Kane. He was satisfied that Mrs Kane had made contact and tried to reach terms and that he was satisfied of an intent to seek reduction in the rent and costs sought in the schedule. District Judge Woodburn was satisfied that this was the intent on behalf of the association to secure a new lease.

He was satisfied by the evidence of Mrs Kane and Mrs Woodley that they had each received and read the notices and understood the notices. From the evidence there were two issues, the argument lawyers refer to as estoppel, which means a representation made and relied upon that results in a detriment arising and the second issue was whether formal agreement with David Dickenson with regards to a new lease.

There was a technical issue regarding arguments, but no witness statement with regard to estoppel or agreement presented. The Claimant had cross-examined and sought to elicit when she could have renewed the lease. District Judge Woodburn said that the matters before him as to estoppel originate from the fact there must have been a representation on behalf of the Claimant, representation from David Dickenson (Asset Surveyor) on behalf of Wirral Council.

David Dickenson’s evidence to District Judge Woodburn had been that in about October 2012 he had received instructions from his line manager not to agree terms to a new lease with the trustees of the association, which ran contrary to the terms of the notice sent in July specifically paragraph three which stated that Wirral Council were not opposed to granting a new tenancy. David Dickenson had said the policy and changed and he had clear instructions not to agree the tenants a new lease.

District Judge Woodburn could find no evidence that these instructions were communicated to the defendants due to the manner in the way David Dickenson effectively avoided communication with Mrs Kane. By April 2013 there had been a number of phone calls to Wirral Council by Mrs Kane to speak with David Dickenson. Apparently she caught up with David Dickenson by April as there is a letter dated 17th April “Dear Mr Dickenson, As requested a letter re the new lease”, the letter sets out Mrs Kane’s position as to the local authority’s proposals with regards to schedule two of the notice. It set out expenses incurred over the previous year, her feelings that the £500 legal costs were not warranted and that she would be grateful if he could look at the expenses of upkeep.

The letter stated that she would like to renew the lease for a rent of £4,250 which was the rent set out in the lease that had expired at May 2011, not on the terms set out in the notice. The letter sought to object to terms put by the Council but there appeared to have been no response to the letter.

Page 37 referred to a note of the telephone call of Mrs Kane to Wirral Council chasing the letter and wanting a response and referred to the letter of 17th April as being sent two weeks ago. There was a further phone call by Mrs Kane wanting a response on the 20th May 2013 as the tenancy was to end on the 31st May 2013. As to whether any reliance at all can be placed on this at all, it seemed to District Judge Woodburn that from the letter dated 17th April it repeated a request for a response which suggested to him that Mrs Kane had received no response at all and there was no binding agreement between the parties.

Evidence of Mrs Kane suggested that she was frustrated by the excuses over why Wirral Council did not respond, however we now know that David Dickenson was under instructions not to engage in discussion and was therefore keeping out of the way. The letter of the 17th April did not propose accepting the terms in the schedule to the notice by the landlord.

Overall on factual issues, no terms were agreed between Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council and Kane & Woodley on behalf of the Association. On balance there were no facts that a binding agreement was reached. The fact that she was chasing a response corroborates the evidence that Wirral Council would see if they would take up the option to apply to the court, if not then Wirral Council would secure a windfall.

If the defendants had applied the likelihood is that the court would have been obliged to give them a new tenancy on the terms agreed or those found appropriate and reasonable by the court. No representation was made by David Dickenson that might of swayed or dissuaded Mrs Kane or Mrs Woodley. No representation was made on which the defendants might place any reasonable reliance.

If “don’t worry” was used, it did not prevent this as the letter of the 17th April shows that they were not of like minds with regards to the lease. The date of 31st May came and went. This was fatal. If no application had been made to the court by this date the defendants lose the right to continue their occupancy which is what the notice said and meant. Any reading of the notice would tell you what you should do and there is agreement it was read. By the middle of May no agreement had been reached.

The business tenancy ended on the 31st May and District Judge Woodburn was satisfied by the evidence that no other tenancy formal or otherwise was created therefore was compelled to grant an order for possession of the land to the local authority principally on the basis of the inaction of Mrs Kane and Mrs Woodley.

District Judge Woodburn said it was a pity but a salutary lesson to members of the public doing good work in the community that trustees had obligations that were real and had far reaching consequences. The notice was clear and had given the defendants the opportunity to apply to the Birkenhead County Court if agreement was not reached or the landlord just kept on avoiding them. The opportunity was not taken up, which is why the tenancy was lost. He asked for representations on the order.

Sarah O’Brien (the barrister acting for Wirral Council) said that they were relaxed, but referred to s.89 of the Housing Act 1980 and referred to forty-eight days being only in cases of exceptional circumstances.

District Judge Woodburn disagreed with her and said that s.89 of the Housing Act 1980 applied to only residential tenancies.

Sarah O’Brien acting for Wirral Council said that s.89 of the Housing Act 1980 referred to possession of land and was content with whatever District Judge Woodburn saw fit.

District Judge Woodburn pointed out there were ten horses on the land. Mrs Kane referred to the difficulty of finding stables. District Judge Woodburn said that alternative arrangements were going to have to be made. He said a reasonable period to find alternative arrangements for the ten horses was six months. If in that time there were still difficulties, the Court must be told what the difficulties are. He felt that six months was reasonable considered the number of owners and the historical use of the site.

Mrs Kane pointed out that the association had sixteen hundred members. District Judge Woodburn said that the association was not affected and that they had a right to keep horses. Mrs Kane referred to the Pony Club. District Judge Woodburn said he understood the history of the Association. It was however left to the local authority as to whether they would agree to an extension of times or any other tenancy.

Sarah O’Brien acting for Wirral Council said that she had received instructions that they had no objections to twelve months. District Judge Woodburn said he was grateful for that. Mrs Kane referred to the letter to relocate them sent twelve to fourteen years ago which referred to relocated them and building new stables.

District Judge Woodburn said, “What can I do? I can’t make an order”. Mrs Kane said it was hard to find stables on the Wirral. District Judge Woodburn said he appreciated the position the defendants were in and was grateful that the local authority had extended it to twelve months. He said that he hoped that Wirral Council could listen and give consideration to members of the association, who were members of the community and council tax payers, whether any alternative arrangements for the association could be found. However he had to deal with the structures of law and that was the pity.

District Judge Woodburn said he had a description that the defendants by 4pm on the 13th February 2015 shall deliver possession of the land situated at Sandbrook Lane, Moreton and asked if there was to be an order for costs?

Sarah O’Brien (the barrister acting for Wirral Council) said Wirral Council were not requesting an order for costs.

District Judge Woodburn said “OK”. He told Mrs Kane and Mrs Woodley that they would get a copy of his Order through the post. District Judge Woodburn said that he hoped notwithstanding the Order that there might be some accommodation to the members of the Association, he couldn’t influence it but he could make an observation. He wished Mrs Kane, Mrs Woodley and the association the very best.

If you click on any of these buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people. Thanks:

EXCLUSIVE: Wirral Borough Council v Kane & Woodley (a case about Fernbank Farm) Part 2

EXCLUSIVE: Wirral Borough Council v Kane & Woodley (a case about Fernbank Farm) Part 2

EXCLUSIVE: Wirral Borough Council v Kane & Woodley (a case about Fernbank Farm) Part 2

                                   

Continues from EXCLUSIVE: Wirral Borough Council v Kane & Woodley (a case about Fernbank Farm) Part 1.

Deputy District Judge Grosscurth said he would include with the witness statements standard disclosure. Wirral Council asked if standard disclosure meant by list with a copy attached? Deputy District Judge Grosscurth asked them to take care with hidden documents.

Cllr Ian Lewis made a point about the missing correspondence. Deputy District Judge Grosscurth said it should still be in the list. Wirral Council said that they should all have a copy.

Deputy District Judge Grosscurth said he wanted to set down how long the final hearing would be, with four witness statements, he suggested three hours. Wirral Council agreed with three hours.

Deputy District Judge Grosscurth started dictating the text of his order, then changed his mind and decided to do it the other way round instead. He said that unless the defendants filed and served a defence, then their existing defence would be struck out and judgement entered for the Claimant (Wirral Council).

Wirral Council sad that they should be entitled to rely on the existing defence. Deputy District Judge Grosscurth said there would be no amended defence unless the defendants filed and served on the Claimant an amended defence by 4pm in twenty-one days? Cllr Ian Lewis agreed with “Yes, Sir.”

Deputy District Judge Grosscurth said if the amended defence was not filed and served by the 12th December then the case would proceed on the basis of the defence already filed and served. For point two in the court order he wanted to move to standard disclosure. He wanted standard disclosure by list with documents attached that were referred to therein filed and served by 4pm on the 12th December.

For point three of his court order he wanted mutual exchange of witness statements by 4pm on a specific date, he pointed out at this point it would have to be well after the 12th December and he’d have to take into account the Christmas period and he suggested the 9th January 2014?

Wirral Council urged the Court to to tighten the timescales a little as the Claimant (Wirral Council) felt it was a relatively straight forward matter that wouldn’t wouldn’t take a great deal of time and could be relatively quick. Wirral Council said regarding the importance of the case it should be dealt with procedurally could the timescales be tightened up?

Deputy District Judge Grosscurth asked Wirral Council what they proposed? Wirral Council answered that they would like the timescales brought forward by a week, with a hearing soon after in the New Year. Cllr Ian Lewis said that to be practical, they wished to stick to the timescale for the first two dates.

Deputy District Judge Grosscurth repeated the timescales of 12th December 2013 and 9th January 2014 with an early listing thereafter. He asked then about the bundle?

Wirral Council said as it was their claim that they would produce a paginated and indexed bundle.

Deputy District Judge Grosscurth repeated and stated that the Claimant would prepare a paginated and indexed bundle in anticipation of the trial of this matter to be filed at court at least seven days before the trial date. He explained to the litigants-in-person that it was a principle that he didn’t want the judge hearing the case to be taken by surprise. A copy bundle would be sent to the defendants and everybody would be served a bundle with numbered pages, served and filed at the court at least seven days before the trial date.

Wirral Council asked about the allocation? Deputy District Judge Grosscurth asked if it was a part 8 claim that had been issued? Wirral Council said they were happy with it being dealt with as a part 8 claim. Deputy District Judge Grosscurth said that would mean it was given an immediate hearing date. He asked what they were looking for?

Wirral Council said in their opinion it was a fast track matter and said they don’t want to proceed with an allocation questionnaire as it would delay with the matter so that could be dispensed with as well.

Cllr Ian Lewis said he had no idea what an allocation questionnaire was. District Judge Grosscurth explained that the options were small claims, multi track or fast track but this was “definitely fast track” as it was not a small claim matter so it would be allocated to the fast track. He said they would be dispensing with the directions questionnaire.

Wirral Council said they would be amalgamated. District Judge Grosscurth said it had been changed in April. Now there was a directions questionnaire and a listing questionnaire and that it would be listed for a final hearing at the next available date after the week to deal with the statements, which was the 16th January 2014. He asked what the estimated length of the final hearing would be?

Wirral Council answered three hours. District Judge Grosscurth said he would change that, as whoever was hearing it on the day needed knowledge of the case. He suggested half an hour of reading time and a two and a half hours for the hearing to split it up.

District Judge Grosscurth asked if there was anything else? Wirral Council said that they “don’t think so” but asked about costs? District Judge Grosscurth said that costs would be sorted out at the end of the day and that there are cost implications which the parties needed to be aware of. He suggested the defendants seek advice from a solicitor or the Citizens Advice Bureau. He made part six of his order about costs in the case and said that the parties knew what they had got to do. Cllr Ian Lewis thanked him, Wirral Council thanked him.

If you click on any of these buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people. Thanks:

EXCLUSIVE: Wirral Borough Council v Kane & Woodley (a case about Fernbank Farm) Part 1

EXCLUSIVE: Wirral Borough Council v Kane & Woodley (a case about Fernbank Farm) Part 1

EXCLUSIVE: Wirral Borough Council v Kane & Woodley (a case about Fernbank Farm)

                         

I was at Birkenhead County Court for an application hearing in the case of Wirral Borough Council v Kane and Woodley heard in front of Deputy District Judge Grosscurth starting at 3pm.

Kane and Woodley are the defendants in the case where Wirral Council is seeking a possession order for Fernbank Farm. Although the defendants had previously been represented earlier in the case by Kirwans, they were no longer represented by Kirwans and had chosen Cllr Ian Lewis to represent them.

Representing Wirral Council was a man called Ali Noman Bayatti (who is a solicitor working for Wirral Council). I refer to him by the party he was representing (Wirral Council).

In the minutes before the case was heard Wirral Council made an offer to the defendants to agree to a possession order which wouldn’t be implemented for a further eighteen months. However the defendants rejected this offer.

The defendants and Wirral Council went to the Judge’s chambers first for a few minutes. Then the press and some other interested parties (who were not parties to the case but were interested in its outcome) were invited into the Judge’s Chamber.

There were less seats than people so a number of people had to stand. Deputy District Judge Grosscurth started by saying that they were “limited on seats”. Deputy District Judge Grosscurth said he no objections to Cllr Ian Lewis speaking during the case, he asked if the form had been signed? Cllr Ian Lewis said it required the defendants’ signatures. The defendants signed the form. The Deputy District Judge pointed out that Cllr Ian Lewis would speak for both defendants (Kane and Woodley).

Deputy District Judge Grosscurth said that he had a “couple of items to tidy up” which dated back to an order made in September to do with permission to change a defence. Cllr Ian Lewis explained that the defendants had previously been represented by Kirwans but that as costs had spiralled this had led to the defendants dispensing with Kirwans’ services as their legal representative.

Deputy District Judge Grosscurth asked if they intended to submit an amended defence? Cllr Ian Lewis said that their intention was to engage a different solicitor to do so or do it themselves. Deputy District Judge Grosscurth pointed out that they were supposed to file by the 21st August and that it would look like an extension.

Wirral Council said that there had been an application for a further extension to the date for the provision of a defence. Deputy District Judge Grosscurth said he had not seen it. He referred to an order of a different judge and the fact that it should have been filed no later than the 14th October which had now expired. He said that the application to further extend the date for the provision of a defence referred to by Wirral Council was not in the case file.

Wirral Council said, “I might be mistaken” and gave their agreement as long as it didn’t delay things too much. Wirral Council referred to the overriding principles in the Civil Procedure Rules and said that the case needed to move ahead.

Deputy District Judge Grosscurth said he would not alter the draft, but that since the 1st April that the time limits had been tightened up. He pointed out that everybody was deemed to know the law and the rules that guide all cases. He referred to a recent Court of Appeal case and said that the needs of litigants-in-person can be accommodated but that the Court couldn’t rewrite the rule book. He asked if Wirral Council had any further objections. Wirral Council answered “No”.

Deputy District Judge Grosscurth said that he would agree to extending the time for filing an amended defence. His next point was that he gathered the three people present (apart from the press, parties to the case and Cllr Ian Lewis) were users of the stable land but not technically parties to the hearing, just observers. He said to them to appreciate that they had “nothing to do with this matter” as the Council had made an application for possession of the land and it was up to them how they dealt with “your issues”.

Deputy District Judge Grosscurth said that he looking for an “early trial” and asked how long they expected it to take? Wirral Council replied that they had filed a witness statement of a David Dickenson, but that they might add a supplementary statement. Deputy District Judge Grosscurth asked how many witness statements the defendants would be submitting? Cllr Ian Lewis answered, “Three, Sir.”

Deputy District Judge Grosscurth pointed out that the Civil Procedure Rules were on the internet and that the defendants and Cllr Lewis could search for them in Google. He pointed that that the Civil Procedure Rules stated the form that witness statements should take and they needed to also include a statement of truth and that they would have to “look into that”. He asked how much time they would need to get prepared and serve their witness statements?

One of the two defendants asked if they could use the ones prepared by Kirwans? Cllr Ian Lewis answered (to Deputy District Judge Grosscurth’s question) three weeks. Deputy District Judge Grosscurth said that he couldn’t see there being many documents. Wirral Council answered that he didn’t think there were any relevant documents to be disclosed apart from the witness statements.

Deputy District Judge Grosscurth said he they should include in the witness statements anything they wish to rely on. If there was extra information brought up at the final hearing then it would either be ignored or the case would be adjourned (with costs awarded to Wirral Council if the case was deferred because of the defendants). He said he was ever conscious with litigants in person that there were no outstanding issues and that the person hearing the case would “not be ambushed”. Deputy District Judge Grosscurth asked for any documents to be included in the witness statements. He asked if there were any points to be raised?

One of the two defendants said that they had not received any correspondence from Wirral Council since July 2012 except for something last August. Deputy District Judge Grosscurth said that he would include in Mr. Dickenson’s statement as it was relevant. He said any documentation has “got to be disclosed” and under the rules of disclosure they had to disclose everything whether it was in favour of their case or not.

Wirral Council asked for standard disclosure.

Continues at EXCLUSIVE: Wirral Borough Council v Kane & Woodley (a case about Fernbank Farm) Part 2.

If you click on any of these buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people. Thanks:

Following the Court Order of 18th April 2012 and a Lib Dem smear: My response

Following the Birkenhead County Court order of 18th April 2012 naming Cllr Alan Brighouse on behalf of the Birkenhead Liberal Democrats granted by Deputy District Judge Ireland following the court hearing of the 4th April 2012, the Lib Dems have finally coughed up the original complaint (not shared with me until now 12 months later, despite their constitution stating 10 weeks) made about me by Simon Holbrook in May 2011 (after he lost his seat). I’ve sought advice and am making parts of it public (as there’s a public interest to at least parts of it being made public), along with my version of events (which seems far closer to reality than his complaint, my comments are in italics). Here’s section 1:-

“1. Smearing of Sitting Councillors

In an email to Cllr Gilchrist dated 19 May 2011 at 09:59, John Brace did link the Standards investigation into Cllr Williams’ and Cllr Bridson’s part in the “special charging policy” with that of the recent investigation into the way in which Martin Morton was treated, despite the fact these are two separate matters.

Cllr Williams and Cllr Bridson are not and were not under investigation into the alleged bullying of Martin Morton. This investigation, which was instigated by former Cllr Holbrook has now concluded and reported. It never was and never had been a matter for the Standards Board for England.”

As is detailed here it was considered twice by the Standards Board for England, as initially the complaint about Cllr Bridson hadn’t been sent to them. The complaint (or complaints as a second was submitted) were made by Martin Morton and had already been reported in the Wirral Globe under the headline Town hall blunder: Wrong paperwork sent to local government watchdog inquiry prior to Simon’s complaint about me.

One of these two councillors had been on the charging policy working group in 2005 that led to the overcharging policy, the other had been Cabinet Member for Social Care and Inclusion (which covers Social Services) during part of the period that the overcharging occurred.

The report referred to, the Martin Smith report, was reported to Cabinet on 14th April 2011, however it was not made public until the following year due to the Labour administration’s attempts to delay both its publication and the AKA report.

The relevant section of my email of 19th May to Cllr Gilchrist (and Cllrs Williams, Brighouse, Kelly, Bridson, Harney, Gilchrist, Mitchell and two other party members), is quoted below.

“Morale in the party is extremely low, the Chair and the Vice-Chair of the local party are currently (according to the Wirral Globe) under investigation on standards grounds following a decision by Wirral Council’s Independent Assessment Panel to refer the matter to Standards for England regarding their roles in the Social Services “special charging policy” and how Martin Morton was treated. This independent report (by now read by councillors but currently exempt) will be published within 2-5 months and will lead to a public discussion of their roles in this saga. Both are likely to be candidates in 2012 and the full reasons how and why they did things will have to be made clear to the public and party in the spirit of openness and accountability if we are to move on.”

Lastly Simon Holbrook refers to himself in the third person, which generally wouldn’t be the case if as claimed he was the author of the complaint. However it’s clear by the way it was written that somebody wanted me to stop asking questions by the way flat out denials were made regarding the standards complaints.

The decision notice of Standards Board for England with regards to Cllr Williams and Cllr Bridson back me up as to what the complaint was about. As it was re referred back to Standards for England following the paperwork mixup, there are earlier decision notices regarding Cllr Williams, Roberts and McLaughlin too.

Birkenhead County Court: An Interesting Afternoon | Mr John Brace v Cllr Alan Brighouse on behalf of Birkenhead Liberal Democrats and Liberal Democrats (the Federal Party) on behalf of Liberal Democrats

Birkenhead County Court: An Interesting Afternoon | Mr John Brace v Cllr Alan Brighouse on behalf of Birkenhead Liberal Democrats and Liberal Democrats (the Federal Party) on behalf of Liberal Democrats

Birkenhead County Court: An Interesting Afternoon | Mr John Brace v Cllr Alan Brighouse on behalf of Birkenhead Liberal Democrats and Liberal Democrats (the Federal Party) on behalf of Liberal Democrats

                          

I had an interesting afternoon at Birkenhead County Court as I was there for a case. Lady Luck seemed to be smiling on me as I was the first case (application hearing) starting at 2 p.m. in front of that particular judge.

Neither of the two defendants (Cllr Alan Brighouse on behalf of Birkenhead Liberal Democrats or Liberal Democrats (The Federal Party) on behalf of Liberal Democrats bothered to turn up and the Judge graciously granted the court order I requested. A thank you goes also to my McKenzie Friend, Leonora Brace for her help.

If only life was always this easy….

Edit: 11/11/2013 The above blog post didn’t contain much detail as it was an ongoing legal matter at the time that had not concluded. The application hearing related to who the defendants were. After the case had been filed the Liberal Democrats (the Federal Party) on behalf of Liberal Democrats (a David Allworthy replied on their behalf) had tried to get both defendants changed to Chris Fox (at the time this application was heard Chris Fox was a former Chief Executive of the Liberal Democrats).

However my application was to restore the original defendants in this case which were Cllr Alan Brighouse on behalf of the Birkenhead Liberal Democrats and Liberal Democrats (the Federal Party) on behalf of the Liberal Democrats. The Judge agreed to do this in an unopposed application.

The matter went to a final hearing at the Birkenhead County Court on the 18th April 2012. Cllr Alan Brighouse appeared on behalf of the Birkenhead Liberal Democrats (accompanied by Roy Wood). Deputy District Judge Ireland agreed with the plantiff (myself) that the defendants (Cllr Alan Brighouse on behalf of the Birkenhead Liberal Democrats and Liberal Democrats (the Federal Party) on behalf of Liberal Democrats had breached s.7 of the Data Protection Act 1998 c.29 and a court order issued under s.7 ss.9 of the Data Protection Act 1998 c.29 was issued by the Birkenhead County Court in my favour ordering the defendants to comply.